> believe that it has positive feedback from 6lo WG. As Pascal said,
> this draft has better to consider the narrow applicability and try to
> find a common/general use case.
Why would we spend time on a document that hasn't got a clear use case?
I watched the 6lo recording (conflict with jwp BOF) yesterday, and the
question about resiliency and alternate paths is a very serious one.
Is this a routing protocol or not?
I do not support adoption of the document.
--
Michael Richardson <mcr+i...@sandelman.ca> . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ 6lo mailing list 6lo@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lo
